Should Section 59 of the Crimes Act be repealed, what assurances can yougive to the parents of New Zealand that they will not be charged with assault under Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act if they subsequently wereto smack their child(ren) on the clothed buttocks with an open hand byway of corrective discipline?

Yours faithfully,

Craig S. Smith National Director

Here is the reply is from Dr A. Jack, Legal Services, Office of theCommissioner of Police and is on Police letterhead. 11 August 2005

On behalf of the Commissioner I am writing in reply to your letter of 26 July 2005 concerning Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961.

As you will be aware, section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 authorisesparents to use force by way of correction towards their children, if theforce used is reasonable in the circumstances. If section 59 was repealed in its entirety parents would not be authorised to usereasonable force by way of correction. Having said this, I am advisedthat parents would still be authorised to use force to prevent harm totheir children. For example, if a parent stopped their child from running out onto a busy road or stopped their child from climbing over abalcony on a building.

However, smacking of a child by way of corrective action would be anassault. I am advised that the Police in investigating such cases, as is the case with all assault investigations, would consider the amount offorce used in the circumstances before making a decision about whether aprosecution is required in the public interest. An aggravating factor in any such decision may be the fact that a child is generally morevulnerable than an adult.

Shutting down debate is a tactic adopted by those who fear the public. That is exactly the position the Labour Government is taking in relationto Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.

Next week the government wants to rush the Bill through all stages in asingle debate on Wednesday and Thursday. Sue Bradford said there had been enough debate, and it should now be passed. To shove a member'sbill through under urgency is unheard of, especially when it isallegedly a conscience vote - but of course in the Labour Party thatmeans Helen Clark's conscience.

Parliamentary procedure provides for separate debate on each stage of aBill for good reason. It is to allow Members of Parliament to reflect,and for the public to make their views known before the next stage is debated. So there have been occasions when a Bill has passed theCommittee stage, but gets defeated on the Third Reading. That is becausethe two or three weeks between the two stages allows an opportunity to reconsider.

The only reason to terminate Parliamentary procedure is to avoidaccountability. Labour knows that many of their MP's don't want theBill. They know a three-week recess when the public can talk to the MP's will mean that many of them will rebel.

The urgency tactic is designed to stifle democracy. But ultimately it isan admission of weakness and fear. Labour may think it can avoidaccountability now, but the voters will have their say in 18 months time, and that is a date Labour can't avoid!

Labour's decision to attempt to ram through the 'anti-smacking' bill under urgency has revealed that this private members bill is now a Labour bill in all but name.

Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First says that this action, as well as Labour MP's being told how to exercise their conscience, is ample proof that the criminalisation of good parents is a clear agenda of the Labour party leadership.

"The Prime Minister can no longer hide behind Sue Bradford as sponsor of this bill," says Mr McCoskrie. "It is unheard of for a private member's bill to be put into urgency, but this shows the desperation by the Prime Minister to get this legislation rammed through before her MP's hear the voice of their constituents during the Easter recess and change their vote."

Mr McCoskrie says that the Labour MP's must be finding this incredibly difficult, especially as they campaigned before the election that it was a conscience vote. Electorate based MP's should be concerned about a voter backlash at the election next year.

"It is ironic that Labour have legislated themselves to be innocent over election spending, yet are willing to pass legislation that criminalise and threatens every good family in NZ. To make a light smack a crime shows just how out of touch this government is."

Family First calls on all National, Maori Party, United Future and NZ First MP's to immediately withdraw their support for the bill.

Putting Parliament into urgency to pass the "Anti-smacking Bill" is unacceptable and anti-democratic, says ACT's Deputy Leader and Party Whip, Heather Roy.

"Around 80% of Kiwis are opposed to banning smacking by good and loving parents. Using urgency to force through a Bill simply because it's unpopular is no way to run a democracy", Mrs Roy said.

"Banning responsible parents from lightly smacking their children as a disciplinary measure is not urgent to the welfare of our country, and the argument that it's slowing down the Government's agenda is rubbish - as a Members Bill, it's only able to be debated on Members Days.

"The reality is that the Bill's supporters are trying to shut down public debate, and are prepared to suspend the normal rules of Parliament to do so.

"ACT will oppose urgency just as strongly as we have been opposing this Bill.

"Child abuse is already illegal - unfortunately enforcement of the law is frequently inadequate. This Bill will not change any of that, but it will succeed in criminalising acts of parenting", Mrs Roy said.

Putting Parliament into urgency to pass the "Anti-smacking Bill" is unacceptable and anti-democratic, says ACT's Deputy Leader and Party Whip, Heather Roy.

"Around 80% of Kiwis are opposed to banning smacking by good and loving parents. Using urgency to force through a Bill simply because it's unpopular is no way to run a democracy", Mrs Roy said.

"Banning responsible parents from lightly smacking their children as a disciplinary measure is not urgent to the welfare of our country, andthe argument that it's slowing down the Government's agenda is rubbish - as a Members Bill, it's only able to be debated on Members Days.

The reality is that the Bill's supporters are trying to shut down public debate, and are prepared to suspend the normal rules of Parliament to do so.

ACT will oppose urgency just as strongly as we have been opposing this Bill".

And I (Andy Moore) say: "good on you Heather - you're just fantastic!"

The Government looks to be panicking over the damage being done to it bythe smacking ban bill. Nothing else can explain the extraordinary, possibly unprecedented, plan to progress the bill through its remainingstages under urgency.

A Government attempt to fast-forward Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial smacking bill looks set to founder, with New Zealand First unlikely to support Parliament taking urgency to push it through.

Urgency is taken for important business and it is highly unusual for it to be taken for a private member's bill, let alone such a bill sponsored by another party's MP.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen approached Ms Bradford to gain her approval for the extraordinary measure, before talking with United Future leader Peter Dunne and New Zealand First deputy leader Peter Brown.

Opinions within each of those parties is divided on the bill, and it seems likely neither will support urgency being taken.

Mr Dunne supports the bill, but United Future's other two MPs oppose it. Last night he said the party would oppose urgency being taken as the bill did not need to be debated hurriedly.

Mr Brown said New Zealand First's caucus would vote on the suggestion next week. He would not comment further, but with two MPs for the bill and five opposed, it seems doubtful that the urgency motion will gain New Zealand First support.

Those 10 votes, plus the 51 from MPs already opposed to the bill, should see the urgency motion defeated.

Yesterday Dr Cullen would not confirm if the Government was considering the move.

The Maori Party, whose support for the bill is vital for it eventually passing, confirmed it had also been approached by Dr Cullen. Its caucus will discuss the issue next week.

The bill has the numbers to become law, but its passage has been stymied by delaying tactics by opponents. Debate on the committee stages of the bill, which will effectively outlaw smacking, began on Wednesday last week. It proceeded at glacial pace, thanks to swathes of amendments and its opponents taking every opportunity to speak against it.

The bill is due to return for debate next Wednesday, but at its current rate of progress a final vote to make it into law may not happen until May.

National said the urgency motion showed Labour was desperate to rush the bill through.

"This is a deeply cynical abuse of power as Labour tries to clear the decks of this controversial issue," National leader John Key said.

Opponents of the bill will march on Parliament next Wednesday.

The bill as it stands allows parents to use reasonable force to protect their child or others from harm, or to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour. However, it would not allow parents to use force for punishment.

Ms Bradford said: "Any sensible reading of the police guidelines on prosecution will show that police will exercise their discretion."

I've listened to enough. People are way too polite in saying Green MPSue Bradford's motivations are pure and her heart is set on theprotection of defenceless children from violence and abuse.

This is simply not true: it is only the smoke screen for her sinisteragenda. It is obvious that this Bill does nothing to help abusedchildren or nail abusive parents, but it will make criminals of the bestparents in the country.

Physical violence and abuse toward children is not Bradford's orLabour's concern: it is the God-ordained authority and influence thatparents have over their own children that Bradford is out to neutralise.She hates the idea that parents can legally inculcate and enforce theirown traditional Christian family values into their children withoutbeing forced to give her radical-feminist-Green values equal time. Soher Bill specifically targets "correction": parents are to be forbiddento correct a child's bad behaviour, attitudes, speech, grammar, dress orhygiene habits into good ones, regardless of how light or reasonable isthe force they use to make the correction.

If parents cannot correct their children, who then can? Governmentagents getting their directions from the Top, where Sue Bradford intendsto dwell. Truancy officers, social workers and police all have legalpowers to use even unreasonable force to remove children from familiesand to ensure attendance at state schooling and propaganda centres(staffed by more Government agents known as school teachers), angermanagement and drug dependency courses as well as living where they'retold, be it in foster families or a prison.

While a simple dictator would be happy controlling the military and theeconomy and thickly lining his own pockets, Bradford's & Labour'sagenda, like the worst Reds of Mao's China and the USSR, istotalitarianism: they know what's best for you and me and will controlus, our personal thought lives and our children. In this way they hopeto claim personal starring roles in Hegel's idea that "the State is godwalking on earth".

Like Sue and Helen's older sister Eve, they have a desire to be as god,knowing and determining for themselves - and everyone else while they'reat it - what constitutes good and evil. Eve fell for it. Looks likethese two have fallen for it too. May God have mercy on us all.

Urgency is almost always used only for Government bills, not private members bills and I doubt it has ever been used for a private members bill of an MP not in Government. I think this confirms it is now Helen Clark's bill, not Sue Bradford's.

As a sure sign this is political panic, not a legislative logjam, No Right Turn points out the already thin legislative agenda has become anorexic. Yes the Government has run out of bills, which makes any urgency a total abuse of the legislative process.

Luckily it looks like the numbers are not there for urgency as NZ First and United Future won't support it. But we should mourn the lack of integrity the Greens are displaying in that they were willing to support urgency. When Rod Donald was alive the Greens were renown for not supporting urgency motions, even on bills they supported, unless it was really necessary such as with tax legislation. Instead their reputation as a party of integrity now is reduced to Bradford saying "It would be great to finish it."

Bradford is also lying when she says that without urgency the debate could stretch on for months. As I have posted previously there are well known guidelines for how long each clause of a bill can be debated during committee stage. This is merely an attempt to ram it through, despite a majority of the public and of MPs being against it.

My message for opponents of the bill is that your campaign is obviously working, why else would the Government be panicking. The focus for the campaign needs to be on giving Labour MPs a conscience vote on the issue.

Hi, I am Andy Moore, and I am 20 and a half years old. I am a Christian.

Just lying in bed tonight, I began to think even more seriously than I previously had regarding the Section 59 debate. In ten years, I will quite likely be married, and have two or three children. Email me if you're the girl...

Now, let's say I head out into the backyard of my home and find my eight-year old son smoking dope with a couple of his friends. I have already warned him against the dangers of taking drugs, and have set the example by not smoking or anything. I have told him that if I do catch him taking drugs, there would be serious consequences.

"But daddy, Nandor Tanczos does it, and he's in the Government!"

Now, if Bradford's bill does pass, what sort of discipline am I going to give my son?

I can ask him if he would like to go to his room for time out. He need not respect me, because after all, I am only his father. He knows that I will not be allowed to pick him up and carry him into his room, because this would be child-abuse.

"Oh, it's not child-abuse Sue? Well, force is force. Who are you to say that parents may use force to remove a child from a dangerous situation, or to take a child into a room for time out, but not for the purpose of correction?"

Who the heck are you to say this Sue? - your pathetic reasoning infuriates me beyond reason.

Or if I find a teen-age boy getting a bit cozy with my thirteen-year old girl in her bedroom, when I have already told her that there is no place for behaviour like this in our family. What do you suggest I do Bradford? Any suggestions Clark?

When what she needs is a good wallop - (painful for a while, but not to cause bruising or bleeding at all) - all I can do is ask her to stay in her bedroom, of course I can't use force to get rid of the teen-age lad. I try to talk some sense into her, but she responds with: "Daddy, haven't you read the S.K.I.P. brochures?... You're not supposed to talk to me in this way. I can call CYFS if I want..."

This is not conjecture. This is what will happen if Bradford's bill is allowed to pass through Parliament. Stand up you Kiwis. Don't let our Government walk all over us like they are doing.

I am writing to let you know of the new website:www.politik.co.nzwhich is currently soley devoted to the Section 59 debate currently taking place in New Zealand Aotearoa.

Sue Bradford, Greens MP is attempting to make the use of force in parental discipline of children illegal.If Sue Bradford's bill is passed through Parliament, then many many good parents will be made criminals. The Police force and CYFS will be entering homes and forcefully evicting children who they have heard have been smacked.Bradford's poorly written bill will surely be more harmful to New Zealand's children than it will help them.

Whichever way you feel on this issue, I would encourage you to email your MPs. www.politik.co.nz will help you do this.

section59.blogspot.com is a blog where myself and two friends post our views, and other people's views, as well as news clips, related to the Section 59 debate.

www.politik.co.nz also has news of the peaceful protest marches to take place on Wednesday 28 March in Wellington and Christchurch. It has constantly updated news on the whole Section 59 debate.

Please check it out, and feel free to ask questions, or comment - or disagree!

I am afraid to have to tell you that the good citizens of New Zealand have no choice but to now take to the streets to protest. The majority of the government having ignored their request: "let parents look after their own children", and attempting to impose it's communist ideals on the very people who they are supposed to represent.

Please Peter, for the love of the children, vote against Bradford's bill.

I used to respect you, as did many of my friends. Your attitude towards the 80% of New Zealanders who are opposed to this law change is nothing short of apalling. By voting for Bradford's bill, you are publically stating that the 120 MPs in parliament know better than the hundreds of thousands of "Mrs. Jones's" up and down our land, who from time to time take a child aside and smack him for breaking a rule or boundary set down by that family.

DO YOU VALUE THE RIGHT TO RAISE YOUR CHILDREN THE WAY YOU CHOOSE, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE?

Then do something about it BEFORE it is too late! Sue Bradford's bill WILL be passed into law unless Helen Clark gets the message that the voters don't want it. As such, there will be a:

MARCH ON PARLIAMENT

Wednesday 28th March 2007, 12pm.

The march will start at Civic Square, and proceed to parliament, where we will give those politicians who think they can run our lives something to really think about.

This bill will do nothing to stop child abuse. Does anybody really think those people who beat children respect the law, or can even read this poster? Instead, Bradford's bill will turn good parents into criminals, and waste valuable police resources arresting and charging YOU, when they could be chasing the real child abusers and criminals. "It only takes a few determined people to make a difference."

Helen Clark was only smacked "once" as a child, and look how she turned out. I was smacked and I turned out fine.

*This march will be peaceful, and children will be present. If anyone turns violent, we will be helping the police cart you off to jail.

Abraham Lincoln once used these golden words to describe the purpose of members of parliament in a democracy: "government of the people, by the people, for the people." With polls now showing over 80% of New Zealanders' in opposition to Sue Bradford's proposed anti-smacking bill, this is the strongest indication yet that our current government no longer understands why they have been elected. In accordance with another cornerstone of democracy, ["Antiantismacking"/ "Too Many Groups Against Bradford & Clark to Count"/insert name here] will be staging a peaceful march on parliament in order to remind our politicians who they are elected to serve. If our message is not heeded, the continued employment of those MP's responsible will be reviewed at the next election.

Sue Bradford's bill, which proposes the removal of the right of parents to use a smack as a form of correction for children, strikes at the very foundations of the family structure and will turn loving parents into criminals. It will see do-gooder Kindergarten and Primary School teachers actively trying to break up families whose parents smack their children for their benefit later in life, as indicated by the words of one unnamed teacher: "People who smack their kids are ignorant morons".

This proposed law would compel the wasting of valuable and already stretched police time and resources getting involved in cases where they have no place, regardless of whether they use common sense in deciding whether to arrest. Indeed, being that one of the jobs of parliamentarians when passing laws is to make them unambiguous, it is outrageous that the police are now going to be put in an even more uncertain position. This will subject the police to more and more public anger – hardly what they need at any time, let alone in the current environment.

I like many other New Zealanders' was smacked as a child when I deserved it. To think that my parents could have been taken away from me (or even threatened with it) is incomprehensible. They have stolen our cash, they have interfered with our property, and now they are trying to invade our homes. It's time to push back.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Bradford's bill to repeal parental authority is simply insane. The onlyreason anyone pays it any attention at all is out of a sense of beingpolite and unwilling to say in public that this idea is completely detached from reality. First, it demonises "correction" of children.This is a core responsibility of parenting. We correct our children'sbehaviour, attitudes, speech, grammar, dress and even tone of voice. Bradford is clearly subversive toward parenting in her intentions.

Second, it is clearly unwanted by the vast majority of the population.To continue to drive it through is not just unrepresentative andundemocratic, it is highly irresponsible and exposes its thoroughly ideological rather than any logical or beneficial motives. It will wreckany chance of forming the social peace and harmony the MPs all say theywant to develop.

Third, it is hopelessly vague and unenforceable. "Reasonable force" is allowed to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour. But the Bill fails tospecify by what standard "offensive" and "disruptive" are to be judged?If the 13-year-old daughter wants to strut around topless in the privacy of her family house, how can the parents claim it is offensive ifneither the police nor the city councils of Palmerston North, Aucklandand Christchurch would declare toplessness in the centre of town atmidday to be offensive, even though it was performed before pre-schoolers and some school children to promote pornography?

Will the parents be trusted to make the call, according to the dictatesof their own privately held standards, or will they be forced to conform to some national standard deemed to be acceptable on an ad hoc basis? Ifit is Bradford's standards - which include approval of prostitution,dope smoking, lowered drinking age and lesbians getting a guy at the pub to impregnate one of them and casting him aside so the lesbians can havea live baby to toy with - it will only prove that this country is nolonger a good place to bring up kids. Dump Bradford's Bill.

Sue Bradford ... was asked whether it would be possible to smack children after her bill becomes law - and she said no."- Newtalk ZB, March 15, 2007

"This whole debate is about whether or not parents who smack should be prosecuted." - Chester Burrows, March 13, 2007

"It should not, one would have thought, have been beyond the ability of our Parliamentarians to come up with a law which says a slap on the hand or bum with the open hand is OK, and anything else is not. But it looks like they can't manage that."- Transtasman, 15 March 2007

Bob McCroskie: "So you do not want to see smacking banned?"Helen Clark: "Absolutely not, I think you are trying to defy human nature."

Please understand that repealling Section 59 will not result in lower child-abuse cases.It will merely criminalise some good parents who continue to smack their children.Labour has a big communist agenda, and I would plead with you to stand alongside your fellow National members, and vote against this extremely damaging bill.

Please show the 80%-90% of New Zealanders that you respect what they have to say on the matter.Many, many voters are now moving to ACT, as it is percieved that National is re-aligning itself, closer to Labour. To help break this common public perception, please do the right thing and vote against Bradford's poorly written piece of legislation.

Thankyou for the job you do, representing us Kiwis,Kindest Regards, Andy Moore

Thank you for contacting me regarding Sue Bradford’s Member’s Bill proposing the repeal of Section 59. I have voted against the bill in previous stages and over 40 of my National Party colleagues have done the same. I will be continuing to vote this way, and will continue to make media comments against the bill. I am more constant on this issue than Helen Clark, who said prior to the election that she would not support such a bill.

A lot of people have spoken to me in recent months about this issue. I’ve heard from many who are worried they’ll be criminalised for being ordinary parents, and giving the odd light smack.

I’ve also heard from people who support the bill and think that no one should be able to hide behind Section 59 and get away with assaults on children. What people who support the Bill hope is that by changing the law we will send a message to all New Zealanders that child abuse is not acceptable.

I agree that a message needs to be sent. Child abuse is not acceptable. However, I do not believe the bill to repeal Section 59 will change anything for the children growing up in violent families. Nor do I see any good in criminalising good, ordinary, parents doing their best.

My colleague Chester Borrows is proposing an amendment to the bill. It is intended to be a sensible compromise, and I attach a copy for your information. The proposed amendments limit rather than abolish the use of reasonable force in disciplining children so, for example, the use of implements would be outlawed.

You will be aware that the debate on this bill has been extended due to the excellent work done in the House by my colleagues. This means the pressure can, and should, continue on the MPs who are working with the Greens in forcing this issue – specifically the Labour Party and Maori Party. Within the National Party several MPs have been given permission to vote for the bill. They have not taken this move lightly, and it has been the subject of much discussion within our caucus, but allowing people to follow their wishes on such votes is a long standing precedent within the Party. The Labour Party is not allowing such a process, and is forcing those MPs who do not agree with the bill to vote for it. The Maori Party has also come out for the bill, despite huge community concern. This means that Sue Bradford has the numbers to pass the bill, without any National support.

RegardsJohn Key MP

-----------------------------------------

Chester Borrows - National Party MP - 20 February 2007

Section 59 amendments explained

“I am seeking a sensible compromise with the amendments I intend to make to Sue Bradford’s Member’s Bill,” says National MP Chester Borrows.

“The full National Party caucus supports my amendments, should the bill get to the committee stages.

“I regard my amendments as a commonsense compromise and hope that other MPs in Parliament see the sense in what I am proposing.

“Essentially, my bill alters what constitutes ‘reasonable force’.

“I do not want to see parents and guardians using the law to get away with committing serious assaults on children, so some amendment to the Crimes Act is desirable.

“But I believe that simply repealing section 59 is problematic in that it would leave the decision about whether to prosecute in the hands of the police.

“Parliamentarians make the laws of this land and they should spell out clearly what the law is. Leaving interpretation over to the police is unfair on both the public and the police.

“Parents should have some limited protections in law, rather than leaving it to the authorities to interpret. So my amendments would seek to limit rather than abolish the use of reasonable force in disciplining children so, for example, the use of implements would be outlawed.”

Thank you for contacting me regarding Sue Bradford’s Member’s Bill proposing the repeal of Section 59. I have voted against the bill in previous stages and over 40 of my National Party colleagues have done the same. I will be continuing to vote this way, and will continue to make media comments against the bill. I am more constant on this issue than Helen Clark, who said prior to the election that she would not support such a bill.

A lot of people have spoken to me in recent months about this issue. I’ve heard from many who are worried they’ll be criminalised for being ordinary parents, and giving the odd light smack.

I’ve also heard from people who support the bill and think that no one should be able to hide behind Section 59 and get away with assaults on children. What people who support the Bill hope is that by changing the law we will send a message to all New Zealanders that child abuse is not acceptable.

I agree that a message needs to be sent. Child abuse is not acceptable. However, I do not believe the bill to repeal Section 59 will change anything for the children growing up in violent families. Nor do I see any good in criminalising good, ordinary, parents doing their best.

My colleague Chester Borrows is proposing an amendment to the bill. It is intended to be a sensible compromise, and I attach a copy for your information. The proposed amendments limit rather than abolish the use of reasonable force in disciplining children so, for example, the use of implements would be outlawed.

You will be aware that the debate on this bill has been extended due to the excellent work done in the House by my colleagues. This means the pressure can, and should, continue on the MPs who are working with the Greens in forcing this issue – specifically the Labour Party and Maori Party. Within the National Party several MPs have been given permission to vote for the bill. They have not taken this move lightly, and it has been the subject of much discussion within our caucus, but allowing people to follow their wishes on such votes is a long standing precedent within the Party. The Labour Party is not allowing such a process, and is forcing those MPs who do not agree with the bill to vote for it. The Maori Party has also come out for the bill, despite huge community concern. This means that Sue Bradford has the numbers to pass the bill, without any National support.

She made this erroneous statement in an attempt to refute the claimsmade by critics of her bill, that if it is enacted into law, it will criminalise good parents who smack their kids using "reasonable force"for the purpose of correction. Bradford is wrong. It is NOT illegal nowfor a parent to smack their children if the action does not contravene the clear guidelines and purpose ("correction") set out in s. 59 of theCrimes Act (1961) for the use of "reasonable force" (in "domesticdiscipline"). S. 59 provides a clear justification for the use of "reasonable force", in the same way the other sections of the Actprovide justification for the use of "reasonable force" (e.g. inself-defence s. 48 and s. 60 Force used by Ship Captains).

Prime Minister, Helen Clark, has also deliberately repeated Bradford＊s misrepresentation of the law. She has called the section59 defence, that is currently in place in our law, "ridiculous".

In setting out her support for Sue Bradford＊s bill that repeals s. 59 of the Crimes Act (1961), prior to it going to the select committee, she told Paul Holmes on NewstalkZB on Monday June 13th 2005:

"On the other hand, to have an actual defence in the law [s. 59] wheresomeone can go and argue they used reasonable force, is also ridiculous."

Most New Zealanders disagree with her. For over two years nation-widepolls have consistently shown that about 80% of New Zealanders want thedefence for use of reasonable force contained in s. 59 retained and notrepealed, the defence that Clark describes as "ridiculous".

"She [Clark] stressed [to Holmes] that the Government would not legislate to ban smacking, saying it would be a "very silly thing todo".

In an interview with Bob McCroskie on Radio Rhema in 2005 Clark expressed strong opposition to any ban on smacking:

Helen Clark: "...a lot of people are uncomfortable with the beating, ah, but theydon't want to see, ah, you know, stressed and harassed parents, ah, you know, called in by the police because they, they smacked a child, so Ithink there's a debate to go on..."

Clearly she has made a complete U-turn in recent days by using her partywhips (neither of whom have ever had children or even been married as National MP Maurice Williamson highlighted in the House), to force allLabour Party MPs to support Bradford＊s bill that Bradford herself hasconceded, bans smacking.

When accused by the National Party of doing a U-turn Clark denied it by claiming that she has always opposed the banning of smacking and thatBradford＊s bill has nothing to do with banning smacking, but onlyremoves the statutory defence against assault that applies to reasonable force used in correction.

The New Zealand public will not be fooled by such deceit and dishonesty.

Helen Clark and Sue Bradford are hell-bent on stripping parents of the only defence they have in law against a spurious charge of ＆assault＊that may be brought against them for using "reasonable force" incorrection. They most definitely seek to ban smacking by legislative means, despite their claims to the contrary, and refuse to concede thatlightly smacking a child for the purpose of correction will be banned ifBradford＊s bill becomes law.

...Meanwhile deluded Ms Bradford is calling for millions of taxpayer dollars to be spent explaining her bill to the public for the purpose ofproving, she hopes, that her bill does not ban smacking! She has alreadywasted millions of taxpayers dollars promoting her "ridiculous" and "silly" (words used by Clark to rubbish s. 59) bill that all sides ofthe debate including Bradford herself, concede will make no impactwhatsoever in reducing child abuse figures in New Zealand.

Green Party MP Sue Bradford is concerned that some of those planning tojoin next week's marches against her repeal of the S59 defence forassaults on children, are not being told the full story by theorganizers.

"My Bill does not, and will not criminalise parents who lightly smacktheir children. It removes a defence for what has always been atechnical assault."

Right, so "technically assulting" a child will not be criminalised?

" The press release for the march also raises fears about good parentshaving their babies taken away under my Bill. Let me clear about this.Unless parents were seriously abusing their children that bogey - thePolitically Correct are coming for your baby - will be no more likely ifmy Bill is passed than it is now."

then why change the law?

"As the Law Commission has said, the Police have ample grounds fordiscretion, stated in their prosecution guidelines, to decide whetherthe public interest would be served by a prosecution,"

It's either ok or it's not ok. The Police will follow what the law says.

"The press release announcing the march cites current polls showing 80per cent opposition to my Bill.' In fact, the 80 percent figure seemsderived from a 2002 Justice Ministry report that found 80 percent of NewZealanders felt smacking a child with an open hand is acceptable.

In response to the dictatorship's intention to take away a parent'sright to smack their children, a march on Parliament is being organised for March Wednesday 28th March. Reports from the media suggest that upto 80% of people are opposed to Sue Bradford's bill, and in a somewhatpleasing development, some MPs have finally started kicking up a fuss.

If something isn't done about this now, next they will be telling us that due to high rates of "child abuse" (i.e. parents smacking theirchildren for correctional purposes), you now need to apply forpermission to HAVE children, and as an extension of this, you may need a permit for any act likely to lead to children.

If you have children, intend to have children, or are just flat outopposed to Nanny State, you MUST support this cause.

UPDATE: The March will start at 12pm at Wellington's Civic Square. NOTE: Wednesday the 28th! I don't want people turning up a week early. Anotherstrong rumour is that Bob McCoskrie of Family First is organising anAuckland March. More details as they come to hand...

Sunday, March 18, 2007

"I have decided to vote against the third reading......I voted for it at the second reading. I was keen to see the issue discussed further and for the House to vote on the Borrows amendment. I worry deeply about vulnerable children but in the end I trust the families of my electorate of Rangitikei to raise our children not the state. As a lawyer I am also gravely concerned about the certainty of application of this proposed change."

Simon.

Simon Power, National MP for Rangitikei - voted for the full repeal of Section 59 in the first and second readings, but has now stated that he will be voting against it on it's third reading.

Plunket: "It is about children. It is about keeping babies and children safe,making the changes and setting the supports in legislation to help thenation do the right thing by them - to give them the best we have."

Um, isn't this the organisation that promotes "mother's choice"? Isn't this the corporation that supports government funding of 18,000 infant-murders per year in this country of ours? Surely they are mistaken? They can't possibly be against abuse towards babies, and yet and the same time, be pro abuse towards babies, can they?

The following is complied by one of Larry Baldock's team from all the quotes of Helen Clark.

I agree with the Prime Minister that all the confusion is coming from the Media ….

Helen Clark says she wants to send this very clear message to the Parents of New Zealand:

It is OK to smack your kids… it is a natural thing to do, but from now on it is against the law. We don't mind if you do smack, but it is illegal and you may be arrested. Smacking will be BANNED, but that doesn't mean you can't do it. We will NOT tolerate any type of force… including smacking, but of course parents will be able to smack their kids.

It is ridiculous to say people might be arrested, because we are only after people who assault their kids. Smackingis assaulting your kids and we do not want it as part of the culture of this country. Of course CYFS and the Police will investigate any complaint of smacking, and parents will be arrested, but I repeat parents will NOT be arrested for smacking their children.

That is the very clear message we want to send to the parents of New Zealand, and we are relying on the common sense of the Police to interpret that when they investigate parents who smack their kids.